I'm in a live critique group where a novel I've been submitting has received glowing reviews from 6 out of 7 critique partners. The one person that has issues with the story is a valued contributor with a typically solid and different perspective. He's a film editor, so he often has insights the more writerly crowd doesn't consider. As such, I value his input.
However, I'm not sure if I'm being defensive toward his latest critique or if he's just wrong, to be blunt. So, without dropping 6k words from the beginning two chapters of the novel, I'll pose it to you as the issue and a following question.
First, be aware, the novel begins in 3rd person past with a reporter interviewing a recently captured and notorious serial killer. The first chapter is relatively short, about 5 pages. The 2nd chapter continues briefly with the 3rd person reporter's interview and then transitions into the past, which is told in 1st person from the serial killer's perspective. The tale is a recounting of how the killer came to find himself in his present form, a murderer waiting out his last moments on death row. There is also a paranormal element.
The main issue this critique partner had was the way the 1st person story is being told. The main body of the story is basically one big flashback (1st person) with periodic returns to the present (3rd person) at the beginning of each chapter.
If you've read Patrick Rothfuss's The Name of the Wind, you'll have a good idea of what I'm going for. In that story the Chronicler is interviewing a mature Kvothe, but when Kvothe recants the story, he tells it from his 1st person perspective, as he was living out the experiences all over, and in minute detail. The reader then gets to live out those same experiences, as they happen.
That's the issue this critique partner has...that the flashback scenes, which constitute 90% of the story, are told as if they're being lived in the moment. He contends that it adversely affects his suspension of disbelief because no one could remember every movement a character made or precisely what was said or done 4 decades past. He believes the story should be told as if the MC is simply telling the story to the reporter.
While I understand that point, I think conveying the story that way would be incredibly boring over the course of a 70k+ novel.
So my question is this, would a story told this way (assuming the story is engaging and interesting) affect your ability to suspend disbelief?
Secondly, beside the example given above, can you offer other literary examples where this technique was used to good effect?
My group meets this Thursday and I want to be prepared for the discussion. I'm hoping you scribes can help me with some more, and varied, perspectives.
Thank you.
However, I'm not sure if I'm being defensive toward his latest critique or if he's just wrong, to be blunt. So, without dropping 6k words from the beginning two chapters of the novel, I'll pose it to you as the issue and a following question.
First, be aware, the novel begins in 3rd person past with a reporter interviewing a recently captured and notorious serial killer. The first chapter is relatively short, about 5 pages. The 2nd chapter continues briefly with the 3rd person reporter's interview and then transitions into the past, which is told in 1st person from the serial killer's perspective. The tale is a recounting of how the killer came to find himself in his present form, a murderer waiting out his last moments on death row. There is also a paranormal element.
The main issue this critique partner had was the way the 1st person story is being told. The main body of the story is basically one big flashback (1st person) with periodic returns to the present (3rd person) at the beginning of each chapter.
If you've read Patrick Rothfuss's The Name of the Wind, you'll have a good idea of what I'm going for. In that story the Chronicler is interviewing a mature Kvothe, but when Kvothe recants the story, he tells it from his 1st person perspective, as he was living out the experiences all over, and in minute detail. The reader then gets to live out those same experiences, as they happen.
That's the issue this critique partner has...that the flashback scenes, which constitute 90% of the story, are told as if they're being lived in the moment. He contends that it adversely affects his suspension of disbelief because no one could remember every movement a character made or precisely what was said or done 4 decades past. He believes the story should be told as if the MC is simply telling the story to the reporter.
While I understand that point, I think conveying the story that way would be incredibly boring over the course of a 70k+ novel.
So my question is this, would a story told this way (assuming the story is engaging and interesting) affect your ability to suspend disbelief?
Secondly, beside the example given above, can you offer other literary examples where this technique was used to good effect?
My group meets this Thursday and I want to be prepared for the discussion. I'm hoping you scribes can help me with some more, and varied, perspectives.
Thank you.